In its first large-scale report (summed up for the Bush administration in a fifty-page "intelligence estimate") on Iraq since October 2002, the CIA has laid out three possible scenarios for Iraq, all of which are grim. The report suggests that new developments in Iraq could lead to civil war. Even the best-case scenario is characterized by a lack of economic stability (which means more American tax dollars), political stability (which means longer U.S. control and, hence, more resentment and hatred in the region directed at the U.S.), and overall security (which means more insurrections taking the lives of U.S. soldiers). Read full coverage of the report at the New York Times, which quotes various Republicans and Democrats who have grown pessimistic about any hope for "success" (what would a success even look like at this point?). Of course we now know that the last "intelligence estimate" was full of erroneous information on Iraq, but Bush has told us that the intel. community has improved since then.
Meanwhile, the White House wants to "re-direct" (which sounds better than divert) $3.46 billion (that's BILLION, not million) of the $87 billion Iraq appropriation away from public works money (many Iraqi citizens are still without water and electricity that they lost during coalition air strikes) to use for security. The move, according to senate republicans (!), is an embarrasing admission of how misguided the Iraq "plan" was. NYTimes reports:
The Bush administration's plans to divert $3.46 billion in Iraq reconstruction funds for security could increase dangers in the long run, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Wednesday.The NYTimes report goes on to say:
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also said the slow pace of spending on reconstruction ``means that we are failing to fully take advantage of one of our most potent tools to influence the direction of Iraq.''
Lugar said the reconstruction spending is important for winning the support of Iraqis. Efforts to improve security should be aimed at allowing the projects to proceed, he said.Do read the full story.
``If the shift of these funds slows down reconstruction, security may suffer in the long run. In short, security and reconstruction must be achieved simultaneously,'' he said.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., described the request as ``an acknowledgment that we are in deep trouble.''
Democrats and Republicans said the request demonstrates the administration's poor planning for the war and its unrealistic optimism that U.S. forces would be greeted as liberators and that Iraqis could pay for their own reconstruction.
Lugar criticized ``the blindly optimistic people'' inside and outside the administration. ``The lack of planning is apparent,'' he said.
Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the panel's top Democrat, said ``It's incompetence, from my perspective, looking at this.''
Kofi Annan reiterated publicly his assertion that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal. We invaded Iraq for U.N. violations--yet our invasion of the country was itself such a violation! Oy.
Today's salon.com has the most damning piece on the Iraq quagmire that I've read. Sid Blumenthal talks to several retired generals, including the former heads of U.S. Central Command and the National Security Agency, who concur that not only have U.S. efforts been misguided (no news there), but that our actions in Iraq have strengthened both al-Qaida and Iran. This is a must-read. Here's the link. For those of you who aren't regular salon.com readers, you must watch a brief advertisement in order to get a free day pass to view salon stories. Bad enough that many Americans (because of Bush's generic use of the phrase "war on terrorism" to refer to the Iraqi invasion and occupation) are under the mistaken notion that Iraq had something to do with 9/11--now many experts (not lefties like me, but military leaders) are arguing that by occupying holy cities and imposing western secularism and killing civilians we are providing fodder for al-Qaida recruiters all over the mideast.
Speaking of the Bushies' misleading Iraq-9/11 rhetoric, hope many of you saw Jon Stewart last night. Stewart played the video of the Rumsfeld news conference where he kept saying "Saddam Hussein" when he meant "Osama bin-Laden." "We haven't seen Saddam Hussein since 2001," etc. Hysterical. I hope Comedy Central puts the video up online. It's not there yet, but keep checking.
9 comments:
Sooooo, what's your point?
If it's hard let's ditch?
Put that on your campaign signs "Vote Left: 40 Years of running from difficult situations!" That'll pull in the votes.
I like you sighting Kofi Annan as an esteemed source after he screwed over the Iraqi people so he could make a few bucks, another great hero of the left. Maybe you can put his picture on that campaign sign.
The left's complaining is making them part of the problem, not part of the solution. Quit being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. For instance, I've yet to hear candidate Kerry give any solid solutions, just moaning.
More (though less nuanced) here:
http://sandmich.blogspot.com/2004/08/only-solutions-please.html
The problem is not that Iraq is "hard," but rather misguided. International politics, contrary to Bush's fifth-grade-reading-level style of oversimplification, is not about hard vs. easy or good vs. bad. Iraq is about over 1,000 dead Americans not to mention the untold Iraqi civilians (like the first Gulf War and the subsequent U.N. bombing, fighting in Iraq has produced a ratio of dead civilians that is just unprecedented in military history). It's about the spending of billions and billions of U.S. dollars. It's about diverting those billions of dollars away from initiatives that would benefit Americans.
Criticizing is not "whining." Criticizing is our patriotic, civic obligation. Blind acceptance is anti-American and anti-intellectual.
Okay, I don't agree with your asesment; but still what do you propose?
I don't mean to put words at your mouth, but I know where this is going: Hard core lefties think we should pull out of Iraq tomorrow and put Saddam back in power. They just don't have the guts to say what they want, so they complain about the situation in the hopes that everyone will come around to their way of thinking.
Much of the same can be said with the ignorant anti-globalization protesters. They sit (or riot) around and complain about the woes of capitalism in the hopes that, magically, everyone will become deluded enough to think that communism works.
I think the anti-Iraq crowd encompasses more than "lefties." More and more free-marketeers--seeing both the billions that are being spent and the competitive bid processes that are being eschewed--are joining the voices of critique. More and more families of national guard members--being strung along with one too many "five more months" and "maybe by Christmas"--are joining the voices of critique. And, as I cited in my initial post, various Republican senators are also joining that chorus.
My sense is that the "if you complain you're part of the problem" rhetoric also stems from Bush's gimme-the-one-paragraph-summary version of events and phenomenon. Like I said, analysis and critique are a fundamental part of the democratic process. Having said that, though, I think the solution is absolutely a pull-out. Many (most?) democrats would strongly disagree (see for example Kerry's hawkish acceptance speech at the DNC, or his plan to pull out in four years). An invasion that violates international law is not a promising first step toward democracy. Forcing an ideology on a people is not a promising second step. Assuming that western notions of secularism have a universal appeal is not a promising third step. We should let people govern themselves and make their own decisions about their futures. Occupation simply doesn't produce free peoples. Imperialism begets oppression and hatred (dangerous for us).
Anti-globalization groups don't necessary want a return to communism, but rather an end to corporate welfare, an end to our tax dollars subsidizing billionaire CEOs who are sending jobs to the third world. Nuance is scary and at times anomalous under Bush, but regulation is not simultaneous with communism.
To say that Saddam was some sort of legit leader is to render meaningless the whole idea of democracy and human rights. One (of the many) nasty story had Saddam's goons starving Kurdish women and children and then feeding the dead bodies to their dogs while the survivors looked on. That’s the person you want to put back in power since the Iraqi people, by some convoluted logic, choose him?
As well, the anti-globalization crowds are commies. When the poor countries south of our borders came to Miami looking for a free trade deal that would get rid of many nasty American agriculture trade barriers; the various spokespeople for the groups talked about how they didn't want any such agreement because of global hegemony of the U.S., or the fact that more land in developing countries would be eaten up for agriculture, or that capitalism will destroy native cultures other hooey like that. Since you’re more than familiar with the morally bankrupt ideas that the left has when it comes to world governance (for instance, that the cesspool of dictators and anti-Semites known as the U.N. is worth more than a clogged toilet); I figured you’d be all boned up on their opinions on how to keep the developing world poor.
Interesting characterization of world leaders--individuals who are working hard to be part of the solution. The U.N. is largely (with some exceptions, of course) full of peace-loving, diplomatic men and women of service, committed to building a world community. To their credit, they listened respectfully as Bush dragged down the level of discourse (not to mention the mean I.Q.) in the room earlier this week. How embarassing that our "leader" brazenly addressed the group whose laws he violated.
Regarding anti-globalization protestors, do you really think that fighting for government regulations equals communism? Or that critiques of capitalism equal communism? There are a range of ideologies--not just two.
I can only imagine what kind of 'solution' the representatives of the many tyrants in the U.N. could cook up. Leaders so great that they won't even issue their own people exit visas for fear the place will be empty (as well, they also keep them too poor to leave). Your insipid 'Bush is dumb' bit is a cop out for only the intellectually laziest of liberals “Look! I found a bad Bush quote, that proves he's dumb; and it makes me feel SOOOO smart!”.
Of course you can point to his policies as stupid, but then I’d know how you feel about people who feel the same way Bush does (what was that I was saying about ‘liberal elitism’?)
I was quite disappointed by the commie protestors in Miami. After being to the Dominican Republic, I imagined how much wealthier they would be if they could actually make money on their sugar. I was happy to see protesters at the meeting because I figured they would be protesting against the exorbitant U.S. trade tariffs on sugar, and the fact that this subsidized industry has wreaked havoc on the Everglades.
But no, they were there issuing the B.S. sited above.
I agree with you that the 'Bush makes lots of verbal gaffes and is dumb' argument is wrong-headed on some levels. First, how articulate a person is often has little to do with intelligence. Not all Mensa members are great orators and not all great orators are members of Mensa.
However, examining the nuances of those verbal gaffes has proven a productive pursuit. NYU media studies professor Mark Crispin Miller wrote a fascinating book on the topic: The Bush Dyslexicon. Miller argues that the Bush malapropisms mask both a deep-seated rage and an agressive anti-intellectualism. These aren't cute mistakes--these are affirmative apologia for complacency.
Which brings me to the second reason why the verbal gaffes/Bush is dumb argument is wrong-headed...it diverts attention from the real material implications of his policies. I call this the SNL factor. Will Ferrel's impersonation taught us to respond to Bush as a benign fool. Many now WISH he were a benign fool, and I think that's why many of us still chuckle over the gaffes--as a kind of pick-me-up, lemme-pretend-just-for-a-minute-that-he's-not-that-bad joke.
But I think we need to look at a comment like "I'm also not very analytical...I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things" and think about its implications.
I don't know about other liberals, but I don't hesitate to go after Bush's policies. Like I said, following SNL's lead, I think many members of the mainstream media went after his gaffes-smarts instead of his policies during the 2000 election. But I *don't* think those policies are "stupid," nor do I think folks who believe in those policies are "stupid." (I hope I didn't give that impression!) I think most of his policies are bad for our country. I think many are unethical. And I don't think conservatives are any more or less likely to be stupid. Not sure where you're coming from with that point.
I'm sure you're more than familiar with the conservative=stupid argument, and I'm glad you don't care for it. I should point out that the conservative=evil bit isn't all that much better, but this is strictly a perception thing.
I think the real news of your post is that someone still watches SNL.
Post a Comment